Ole,
Thank you for your good summary and check list.
> H. Accounting (I did not understand this requirement)
This means "ISPs often want to log WHO used WHICH prefix from WHAT TIME to
WHAT TIME for to calculate fees or track who was abusing, and so on".
So your check list wil be:
| A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H |
-----------------------------------------------------
Router Renumbering| x | both| x | x | ? | - | - | ? |
ICMP PD | x | both| * | x | ? | x | * | x |
DHCP PD | x | both| x | x | x | x | x | x |
PPP/IPV6CP option | - | p2p | - | x | x | ? | * | x |
Proxy-RA | x | p2p | x | - | - | - | * | - |
new RA option | x | p2p | x | x | - | - | * | - |
-----------------------------------------------------
BTW, I like the idea of Proxy-RA(very primitive MSR?), but it is accurately
not a method for prefix "delegation" but for prefix "advertisement".
IMO,
- DHCP PD is the best for prefix delegation, where PE delegates prefix(es)
to subnet(s) behind CPE
- RA-proxy (or MSR) is the best for prefix advertisement, where PE advertise
prefix(es) to a subnet which is shared the PE-CPE link and links behind CPE
Here are my comments for each proposal:
- RR: Can we use it for over-site renumbering? I noticed many panelists at
IESG plenary said they don't know where to use RR
- ICMP PD: I loved it, but it's quite similar to DHCP PD for now. Many
implementors said it's easier to implement DHCP PD than ICMP PD, because the
draft is more mature.
- DHCP PD: I love it now :-) It satisfies the most requirements for us, who
want to start IPv6 access services tomorrow. I saw many running codes are
working with no problem.
- PPP/IPV6CP: Not bad. But we need another protocol when not using PPP,
anyway.
- Proxy-RA: I love it for MSR enviroments as I wrote above.
- new RA option: Too limited. Can be available only for P2P lnk, no method
for accounting and tracking.
--- Toshi Yamasaki / NTT Communications
> with regards to the PD discussion after Miyakawa-san's presentation.
> I've added some requirements, and based on that started with a
> comparison. I haven't read the router renumbering spec lately, so
> please fill me in on that one.
>
> Mechanisms
> ----------
> Router Renumbering RFC2894
> ICMP PD draft-haberman-ipngwg-auto-prefix-02.txt
> DHCP PD draft-troan-dhcpv6-opt-prefix-delegation-01.txt
> PPP/IPV6CP option -
> Proxy-RA/Multi-link subnet draft-ietf-ipv6-multilink-subnets-00.txt
> RA option draft-lutchann-ipv6-delegate-option-00.txt
>
> Requirements:
> draft-miyakawa-ipv6-prefix-delegation-requirement-00.txt
> -------------
> A. L2 independent
> B. Multi-access/Point to point
> C. Support for Renumbering
> D. Any prefix length can be delegated
> E. Authentication
> F. Negotiation, i.e requestor has a say
> G. Other configuration options, e.g DNS, NTP with the same mechanism
> H. Accounting (I did not understand this requirement)
>
> | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H |
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Router Renumbering| x | both| x | x | ? | - | - | |
> ICMP PD | x | both| x | x | ? | x | * | |
> DHCP PD | x | both| x | x | x | x | x | |
> PPP/IPV6CP option | - | p2p | - | x | x | ? | * | |
> Proxy-RA | x | p2p | x | - | - | - | * | |
> new RA option | x | p2p | x | x | - | - | * | |
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> x - supported
> - - not supported
> * - could be supported, but perhaps not a good fit i.e DNS options in
IPV6CP
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
> IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
> FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
> Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
